Latest News

'We need to tell the stories of positive progress': Tony Blair talks to Interaction Magazine

This article appeared in the September 2010 issue of Interaction's Monday Developments Magazine

A Conversation with Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister and patron of the Africa Governance Initiative.

What is your opinion on the current state of the G8 Gleneagles commitments, the level of distribution to date and the future of these commitments?

The Gleneagles commitments were quite remarkable. I remember it being very difficult to get Africa to the top of the agenda in the first place, but when that happened, we were able to get commitments that were very forward-looking and very precise. Looking at what has been achieved, on debt relief we got £100bn of commitments – and this is still coming to fruition – witness Liberia having $5bn of debt-relief within recent weeks. On aid you can debate whether we got 60% or 70% of what was promised, but it is still a lot: 200m HIV/Aids treatments; 3 million people with malaria bed nets when in 2003 it was just a couple of hundred thousand. Not to mention the 40 million additional people in education across Africa.

I don’t personally subscribe to the “dead aid” theory. I believe it’s absolutely vital that aid commitments are met in the long-term. However, aid on its own is insufficient. Governments and NGOs should be working on improving governance, but more specifically, enabling African leaders to build capacity and capability, so that development is sustainable.

What is your opinion of development issues being moved from the G8 to the G20?  Will it mean more or less focus on development aid?

At this stage, it’s impossible to say for sure. With China, India and many other large economies onboard alongside the G8 countries, the G20 is becoming one of the most important forums of global discussion and decision. This could of course be a very good thing for the developing world. However, pressure on decision makers from development organisations, faith groups and all NGOs as well as the public at large will be essential to keep global poverty on the agenda.

How will the results of the recent UK elections impact its foreign aid / foreign policies?  

The UK has come a very long way on foreign aid. In the lead up to 1997, Britain was spending less and less on international development and when we came into government we reversed the trend and consistently advocated for increasing foreign aid. When you think about it, it’s quite something that one of the few consensus issues in this year’s election campaign was international development. The fact that all three main parties pledged to protect development spending even as we emerge from a global economic crisis is a testament to Britain’s leadership on development. I know that Andrew Mitchell the new Secretary of State is personally very passionate about these issues, which is a good sign. It is absolutely right that the new government is moving forward with development commitments and looking to improve quantity and quality of aid.

How were you able to obtain such comprehensive support for increasing ODA [official development assistance] in the UK?

I think a combination of factors came together. We decided quite early on that increasing aid, not just from the UK, but across the G8, was a priority for both the UK Presidency of the EU as well as the G8. Seeing through that intention required a lot of groundwork with each of the leaders and their governments at every level, but we were determined to make sure that the summit that was coming to Gleneagles would produce something meaningful.  Of course the case we were putting to other countries was made all the more powerful by the coming together of charities, NGOs and faith groups for the Make Poverty History campaign, a campaign which engaged millions of people all over world in a common cause. All those factors came together and the pledges were made by the richest countries – an historic moment. But as any campaigner will tell you, you have to keep up the pressure and keep people engaged to make sure that, in the end, delivery happens. And this is the challenge for anyone interested in development issues. But I’m convinced this challenge can be met.

If you could make one major change in foreign development assistance practice around the world, what would it be?

I think we need to tell the stories of positive progress that we are seeing across the developing world. Whether you’re coming at this as politician, as aid worker, as volunteer or as businessperson, these countries aren’t helped by a negative assessment of their future. And there are many such stories. The work my Africa Governance Initiative does with three of Africa’s most promising countries – Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Liberia – fills me with optimism for the future of the continent. They, and many other countries across Africa, are led by an exciting new generation of pro-reform visionary leaders who understand how they’re going to develop their countries for the long-term. It is stories like theirs that will engage more and more people in the issues and most importantly, encourage investors to view Africa as a serious investment prospect rather than a charity case.

How do we currently get our priorities wrong in international development?  Are we spending too much on bandages (i.e., solutions to symptoms) and not enough on more fundamental problems like governance, corruption, education?  Or do we have the mix about right?

For me, well-governed countries with thriving private sectors are countries that eventually don’t need aid. And that’s the place that we should want every country to get to. As I said before, I do not agree with the “dead aid” view, but everyone does need to recognise that good governance and foreign investment are actually more important if you want every country to move away from aid dependence. Spending £10m on a small scale agricultural project can have a great impact, but you might be better spending that money reforming the agriculture ministry for the benefit of the entire country. That’s why I started the Africa Governance Initiative. I have a team of talented expert advisers working at the centre of governments in Liberia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, alongside government officials, helping them to deliver the Presidents’ respective visions. Each of these governments understands that better governance and increased capability will enable them to get on their own two feet and lift their people out of poverty. And I think we can help them achieve this by aligning our development priorities with theirs.

What can the U.S. (and particularly USAID) learn from the reforms at DIFD?

We set up DfID in 1997 to professionalise our approach to aid. I think it’s fair to say that it was a real success and it is now one of, if not the most effective, efficient and flexible aid agencies in the world. Making sure that our development agencies are as effective as possible is key to making every penny of aid count. I met recently with Raj Shah, an incredibly bright guy with a lot of excellent ideas. He really does understand this need and I’m very confident that he will push hard for results and reform.

Private giving is highest in the U.S., while ODA is greater in Europe. Given this disparity, which form of assistance do you think is more/less effective?

I think that both are incredibly important, but in many ways, I think the development community should be asking another question. We should be working out how we can help countries to improve their investment climate, to sustainably grow their economies and move beyond aid for good.